Court Dumps Prenda's Subpoena

from the quashed dept

You may recall that Prenda had (not surprisingly) gone crazy overboard with subpoenas in its attempt to intimidate some anti-copyright troll bloggers and their commenters. The EFF stepped in and asked a court to quash the subpoena, which the court has now done, in large part because Prenda never even bothered to respond.

As
of this date, no responsive memorandum has been filed. LRCiv 7.2(i) provides in part “if the
opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memorandum, ...such
noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the
Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” Pursuant to this rule, the Court deems
Plaintiff's failure to serve and file the required answering memorandum a consent to the
granting of Defendant-Movant's Motion to Quash the Subpoena to Wild West Domains
Seeking Identity Information.

I guess Prenda's a bit busy. Or someone there realized this subpoena had zero chance of actually going forward. Either way, the subpoena is dead.

Re: Re:

No, I'm saying that if the only reason it was quashed is because of the failure to respond, then it's strange to say that it was "in large part because" of that since that implies that there is some other part that is also the reason for it being quashed. There is no other reason it was quashed. The merits were totally irrelevant. It was quashed because, and only because, the failure to respond.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

LOL! I'm basing this on the evidence, not faith--as you clearly are. Said the court: "Pursuant to this rule, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to serve and file the required answering memorandum a consent to the granting of Defendant-Movant's Motion to Quash the Subpoena . . . ." There was no need to consider the merits as the subpoena gets quashed on procedure alone. There is no evidence whatsoever that the court's decision turned in even the smallest part on the merits. Sorry, my faith-based friend, but you're dreaming.

They never replied because they sort their mail into two piles, cash & trash. They sort it by using a bright light and seeing if the mail contains their hush money,which goes into the cash pile, and if it's just a bunch of boring paper it goes into the trash pile. They make their gardener open all the packages.

it makes me wonder then, had anyone from Prenda or whoever had turned up, would the court have granted the subpoena, even though it was a blatant load of shite designed as yet another delaying tactic? if this whole mess gets sorted out, i sincerely hope the court gives a sentence that is suitable, thinking to itself what the sentence would have been if it was an ordinary person(s) in court under as near to charges as could be and given the way the court has been lied to and been made to wait. i bet that would have been a serious fine ($100,000s) and probable jail time! if good for one, should be more than good for the other, given the profession of those involved!

"Prenda? Prenda who? Never heard of 'em."

Anyone who responded would have thus officially identified himself as a Prenda principal, and at the moment the whole gang is doing their utmost to distance themselves (at least, in the eyes of the law) from the operation.

filing documents by misleading court workers comes to mind.
And money is due soon...
And everyones favorite RIAA shill is hopefully getting bench slapped by the appeals court after picking Prenda over the law...

So one has to wonder if Prenda et al, still think trying to silence the critics was a good plan. It seems to have backfired on them, gotten more people looking at what they were doing, and much more coverage of their dockets... there is a name for that... what is that effect again? :D

Re:

The case would have fallen apart before then.

This subpoena request was an attempt to obtain the name of the blogger 'Die Troll Die'.
DTD runs the blog DieTrollDie.com where Copyright Trolls get exposed.
They also sought the name of 'Sophisticated Jane Doe', but the registrar was different and much less US based.
This was the 3rd(?) failure in this case to unmask anonymous posters/commentators and just visitors to the 2 blogs.

They contend that me calling them a half step up from Nigerian Scammers was defaming them, I think I gave them to much credit.

This was about trying to discredit those people who were calling out Pretenda et al. (they've had so many names past, present, and future) as evil people out to sully the name of these fine upstanding lawyers who were protecting pornographers.

Re: Re: Re: Prenda Fall down

The "corporate veil" was found to be a fraud by the Court in another case already. That is Fact. They were told by the Court that it looked that way, and asked if it was so, and they refused to disagree or provide any other theory on who the shell company is, and if the shell company even exists. So it was found as Fact that there is none, and that the claim that there was a shell company was part of a an act of moral turpitude.